Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In our area, some of the appeal of older housing is that they may have features that are no longer allowed in new construction. If we could build a rooftop deck, it would have incredible, panoramic ocean views. Our neighbors’ decks were grandfathered in, but we can’t add one.
Even little things… if you wanted something like a wood-burning fireplace, you would have to buy an older house, since WBFs are no longer allowed in new construction.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,460,349 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinE
New homes are mostly OSB sheathed garbage unless you are talking about high end customs.
Yes, cheaper materials 'fer sure, though the newer ones are also 'yugely' more energy-efficient, make much better use of 'space', and those 'cheaper materials' are often a lot easier to repair.
Just remember old homes are Money Pits. If you are OK with that.
Eh, maybe to an extent.
But the cool aura or mojo of owning a 100+ year old home is pretty awesome. They were built like fortresses. Most current new builds are devoid of life. And then there's all that grey paint...
Cheaper materials 'fer sure, but the newer ones are also 'yugely' more energy-efficient, make much better use of 'space', and those 'cheaper materials' are often a lot easier to repair.
Stronger materials too, at least in some respects. OSB is stronger than boards in the purpose that its used for. It isn't as strong if you fling a projectile at it but honestly, if a hurricane or tornado launches something throguh your siding, sheathing, insulation, and drywall, you've got bigger problems.
I have friends that live in really expensive areas and they bought homes that's 100 years old. One spent 150K +, another spent 200K on renovations. They couldn't afford newer houses but just spent years living in them and updating things as time passes. A 100 year old house costs 800K.
The biggest thing is that after spending that much, there are still updating to do. They redid kitchens, bathrooms, flooring, siding, etc. But one friend only fished out the knob and tube wiring for new wires, but the house still doesn't have insulation, and only has plaster walls, but at least he changed all the windows.
My question is, to really do it right, such as updating a 100 year old house, by changing roof, shingles, take out Knob and tube wiring, new drywall with insulation, bathroom, kitchen, flooring, etc, wouldn't it be better off just buying a new or at least a house built after 1980 to not have asbestos and lead paint? At least it will last much longer and it won't have major issues in a few years. Where's the point where it's not worth it to buy old, there's a certain point where age will catch up and the foundation will be costly to fix, and a teardown is cheaper. I really feel that if someone spent that much Into renovations and after 10 years the house cost a ton to fix, if it's a teardown, then so much money is wasted on cosmetic stuff.
There are many things that don't necessarily need to be replaced on an older house such as plaster, tile, clapboard, flooring, roofing (in particular tile and slate) if they've been well-maintained over the years. Brick can be repointed; insulation blown in, tile re-grouted, hardwoods refinished.
A thoughtfully done rehab of an older house that hadn't had the character stripped out of it over the years beats the pants off most new construction if you're comparing apples-to-apples. Of course, being a lover of old houses, that's simply my own very biased opinion. (On a related note: there's a special place in hell for people who replace hardwood in an older house with the luxury vinyl crap, arbitrarily replace plaster that's in good condition with drywall, replace windows with no eye to the era/style of the house (instead of saving that which can be repaired and replacing like with like in terms of style, if not materials) and open up every wall that can be opened whether or not it makes good sense to do so.)
I grew up in an old house, lived in several of them as a renter, and now own an old(er) house myself after having lived in two custom-built new construction houses. What I will tell you from experience is that all houses are money pits--it's just a matter of degrees. There's always something going on with a house, but for those of us who love old houses, it's something that most of us go into willingly with an eye to the balance sheet in terms of what needs to be done when and triaging those same things in order of importance/necessity. To me, owning an older house has been well-worth the cost and occasional headaches.
Last edited by Formerly Known As Twenty; 07-28-2021 at 11:16 AM..
Excellent point; some are probably counting "upgrades" and "updates" that shouldn't even be considered on an older house as part of the essential rehabbing they say must be done. You can save a lot of money by just learning to love its original charm... If you don't, you really shouldn't be buying an old house.
100 years old? That would be a 1920's house. That's younger than the first house I bought, which was built in 1915, but had had new wiring put in by the previous owners, and an updated kitchen.The 1920's were the era of Craftsman houses, with beautiful woodwork and built-in furniture/storage, and high ceilings, and lots of natural light, usually. The 1980's------ meh. And most don't need work on the foundation. The 1930's were a very good decade, too, and those houses usually don't need electrical updating or kitchen updating, depending.
OP, I think you need to study architectural eras. You're missing a lot of relevant info. Or maybe it's the area you live in, and the regional style. I guess we can't generalize nation-wide. The 20's & 30's are my favorite eras. And if the previous owner replaced the roof (they need replacing every 15 years, roughly), the new owners wouldn't have to, not for a good while. Most people wouldn't buy a house that needed a new roof right away; that's not considered a good buy, so I can't begin to guess why your friends would do that.
And FYI, some people prefer plaster to sheet rock, and larger windows to small, cell-like apertures in the bedrooms that became common in later eras. With newer homes, I find that a lot needs to be added in, to transform a sterile, boxy look into something that feels homey: wood trim around the doorways and windows, vintage lighting, and other touches that give a home character. The 90-100-year-old homes already have all of that.
Yes, cheaper materials 'fer sure, though the newer ones are also 'yugely' more energy-efficient, make much better use of 'space', and those 'cheaper materials' are often a lot easier to repair.
They aren’t necessarily “hugely” more energy efficient. I haven’t stayed in a brand new place that stays cool enough in warm summers that you didn’t need AC, but I have stayed in an old farmhouse abroad (stone) that stayed a nice temperature in summer. I think it’s also arguable whether new homes make better use of space. I don’t really care with open concepts that have gigantic kitchens and bathrooms, places I probably spend the smallest part of my day.
They aren’t necessarily “hugely” more energy efficient. I haven’t stayed in a brand new place that stays cool enough in warm summers that you didn’t need AC, but I have stayed in an old farmhouse abroad (stone) that stayed a nice temperature in summer. I think it’s also arguable whether new homes make better use of space. I don’t really care with open concepts that have gigantic kitchens and bathrooms, places I probably spend the smallest part of my day.
I am most concerned with the home owners insurance. We bought an 1984 small home. The insurance company said when it gets to 50 years old, the deductible will be about 3 times the cost. Of course if one has a lot of $, one may not care. But all we did is replace the a/c system and replace 2 double paned windows. This old house has about 3 in. of concrete before the drywall starts. The 2004 home we moved from had the drywall right down to the ground. So, it's better with that.
In our area, some of the appeal of older housing is that they may have features that are no longer allowed in new construction. If we could build a rooftop deck, it would have incredible, panoramic ocean views. Our neighbors’ decks were grandfathered in, but we can’t add one.
Even little things… if you wanted something like a wood-burning fireplace, you would have to buy an older house, since WBFs are no longer allowed in new construction.
Neither is natural gas in some locations.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(On a related note: there's a special place in hell for people who replace hardwood in an older house with the luxury vinyl crap, arbitrarily replace plaster that's in good condition with drywall, replace windows with no eye to the era/style of the house (instead of saving that which can be repaired and replacing like with like in terms of style, if not materials) and open up every wall that can be opened whether or not it makes good sense to do so.) 
